RBG’s dead and Mitch is gonna do it

Agema

Ph'nglui mglw'nafn Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
1,830
1,285
118
While I am pro choice, I think Roe a fraud of a decision. It was the political will of a majority of USSC Justices. If over turned by non-activists as such, abortion does not become illegal: the issue is returned to the states.
Roe v. Wade is established law. If it were overturned, it will absolutely be because of activists. See your own comment below about evangelicals' voting intentions.

Many of these states will promptly declare it illegal. We know what happens here: abortions will be done illegally instead by unlicensed practitioners in unsafe conditions, and poorer women will be severely injured, sometimes die, and face long jail terms.

But I also doubt Roe will be over turned and that has ramifications for the idea of self government. With all of these "conservative" USSC justices agreeing to let Roe stand, what the heck were all of those evangelicals voting Republican for?
Respecting Roe v. Wade is something conservative justices say smooth their appointments to SCOTUS that they don't have to honour once on SCOTUS.

ITMT: Romney could still throw a wrench in the nomination process. He says he'll do hearings... doesn't mean he'll vote to confirm.
I have similar suspicions. Romney has agreed to to the vote, but his comment implies he might well reject a candidate.
 

gorfias

Unrealistic but happy
Legacy
Apr 6, 2020
709
189
48
Country
USA
Roe v. Wade is established law. If it were overturned, it will absolutely be because of activists. See your own comment below about evangelicals' voting intentions.

Many of these states will promptly declare it illegal. We know what happens here: abortions will be done illegally instead by unlicensed practitioners in unsafe conditions, and poorer women will be severely injured, sometimes die, and face long jail terms.



Respecting Roe v. Wade is something conservative justices say smooth their appointments to SCOTUS that they don't have to honour once on SCOTUS.



I have similar suspicions. Romney has agreed to to the vote, but his comment implies he might well reject a candidate.
Pro Life activists certainly are responsible for efforts to put anti-Roe Justices onto the USSC but again, I know of no legal authority talking about making the pro life position constitutional law, outlawing abortion at the Federal level.

States that do outlaw the practice: I have to wonder when implemented, if those doing so will pay a political price.
 

Agema

Ph'nglui mglw'nafn Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
1,830
1,285
118
Pro Life activists certainly are responsible for efforts to put anti-Roe Justices onto the USSC but again, I know of no legal authority talking about making the pro life position constitutional law, outlawing abortion at the Federal level.
Who knows what the future holds? If the Tump presidency teaches us anything, it's that all bets are off. Once Roe v Wade falls, I can't see that evangelicals are just going to stop at their states.

States that do outlaw the practice: I have to wonder when implemented, if those doing so will pay a political price.
I can't imagine what that would actually be: it's what their dominant party's voters want. They'll just oversee maiming and criminalisation of their own people, and feel the thrill of piety and justice. I mean, the worthy wealthy and the mistresses they accidentally knock up will just take a quick weekend flight out of state as required, but the poor who can't... they're just chaff, so who cares?
 
  • Like
Reactions: gorfias

Worgen

Follower of the Glorious Sun Butt.
Legacy
Apr 4, 2020
1,515
416
88
Gender
Whatever, just wash your hands.
While I am pro choice, I think Roe a fraud of a decision. It was the political will of a majority of USSC Justices. If over turned by non-activists as such, abortion does not become illegal: the issue is returned to the states. An activist decision would be to hallucinate that the unborn have rights that preclude abortion everywhere. That would make abortion illegal even at the state level. I don't think that is going to happen.
But I also doubt Roe will be over turned and that has ramifications for the idea of self government. With all of these "conservative" USSC justices agreeing to let Roe stand, what the heck were all of those evangelicals voting Republican for?
ITMT: Romney could still throw a wrench in the nomination process. He says he'll do hearings... doesn't mean he'll vote to confirm.
You would need 4 republicans to decide not to vote, they will get their supreme court justice, there isn't a way to stop it.

What makes you think Roa was a fraud of a decision?
 

SilentPony

Previously known as an alleged "Feather-Rustler"
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
9,186
217
68
Corner of No and Where
I fear for the future of democracy as well, but do we actually think the supreme court would be so brazen? I have no doubt Trump would, he doesn't seem to think about what he does, but the justices? I'm not sure that they'd want to be remembered as the ones who killed democracy.
They did in 2000, remember? Shutting down the recounts in Florida, by Bush's brother Jeb? And they sided with the Republicans. and the court has only gotten more conservative, and a full 1/3rd of them will be Trump lackies.
I absolutely think they'll be that brazen. Remember democracy doesn't die violently, it dies slowly in small amounts. Russia still has elections, there's just 1 person running. China still has a senate, they just don't have power. North Korea still has a judicial system, its just run by the President.
 

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 24, 2020
968
182
48
Country
USA
What makes you think Roa was a fraud of a decision?
To paraphrase the decision: "The constitution guarantees a right to privacy. We know it doesn't actually, but it's implied in there somewhere. Not sure where, could be the 9th amendment, could be the 14th amendment, squint hard enough and you'll find it. And that right protects a woman from things that might cause her hardship, because we think it should... but not completely, obviously there's a line. Like, you can't just have abortions any time you want when the government wants those kids alive, so we'll just put some timestamps on when states can put certain restrictions on. Bada-bing, bada-boom, turns out the centuries old common law position on abortions was secretly hidden in the text of the constitution the whole time! Yay!"
 

Worgen

Follower of the Glorious Sun Butt.
Legacy
Apr 4, 2020
1,515
416
88
Gender
Whatever, just wash your hands.
To paraphrase the decision: "The constitution guarantees a right to privacy. We know it doesn't actually, but it's implied in there somewhere. Not sure where, could be the 9th amendment, could be the 14th amendment, squint hard enough and you'll find it. And that right protects a woman from things that might cause her hardship, because we think it should... but not completely, obviously there's a line. Like, you can't just have abortions any time you want when the government wants those kids alive, so we'll just put some timestamps on when states can put certain restrictions on. Bada-bing, bada-boom, turns out the centuries old common law position on abortions was secretly hidden in the text of the constitution the whole time! Yay!"
This goes over the history of right to privacy.
 

gorfias

Unrealistic but happy
Legacy
Apr 6, 2020
709
189
48
Country
USA
You would need 4 republicans to decide not to vote, they will get their supreme court justice, there isn't a way to stop it.

What makes you think Roa was a fraud of a decision?
EDIT: Without trying to apply an instance to the intent of a laws framer (which won't always be perfect) all your left with is whatever a judge, with his/her own biases wants. So much for self government, hello to the USSC becoming a super legislature.

One has to make some room for logical conclusions for things and situations that did not exist when the Constitution was framed. There was no Internet then. But it covers free speech. Isn't posting something on the Internet publishing? How about modern weapons? An AR15 didn't exist in the 18th century. Covered by the 2nd? I think so.

To me, Roe crosses a line. Would you believe RBG was critical of Roe too?

The US was incrementally coming to some kind moderate stance on abortion rights. Roe short circuited a growth process, doing a lot of damage in the process and leaving us here, where we are today.

Politically? If the court does away with Roe, I may agree with it legally but there is going to be heck to pay politically on all sides.
 

Agema

Ph'nglui mglw'nafn Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
1,830
1,285
118
To paraphrase the decision: "The constitution guarantees a right to privacy. We know it doesn't actually, but it's implied in there somewhere."
It states a right to liberty, several tmes.

That this encompasses certain rights to privacy (or if you like, a right to not be interfered with in one's personal affairs by the state) is established well enough in philosophy, and perhaps more importantly had been in established in US jurisprudence even before Roe v Wade.

Not sure where, could be the 9th amendment, could be the 14th amendment,
They both detail (if vaguely) the limits of the state over the lives of its citizens, i.e. liberty.
 

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 24, 2020
968
182
48
Country
USA
This goes over the history of right to privacy.
Yeah, that basically aligns with what I said. Personally, I'd be all for a constitutional amendment actually spelling out a general right to privacy. But like, to start with an implied right and then stretch all the way out to effectively legislate the general status quo into place, basically telling both sides of the argument to shut up and leave it be... like, there's not a constitutional basis for that.
 

Worgen

Follower of the Glorious Sun Butt.
Legacy
Apr 4, 2020
1,515
416
88
Gender
Whatever, just wash your hands.
EDIT: Without trying to apply an instance to the intent of a laws framer (which won't always be perfect) all your left with is whatever a judge, with his/her own biases wants. So much for self government, hello to the USSC becoming a super legislature.

One has to make some room for logical conclusions for things and situations that did not exist when the Constitution was framed. There was no Internet then. But it covers free speech. Isn't posting something on the Internet publishing? How about modern weapons? An AR15 didn't exist in the 18th century. Covered by the 2nd? I think so.

To me, Roe crosses a line. Would you believe RBG was critical of Roe too?

The US was incrementally coming to some kind moderate stance on abortion rights. Roe short circuited a growth process, doing a lot of damage in the process and leaving us here, where we are today.

Politically? If the court does away with Roe, I may agree with it legally but there is going to be heck to pay politically on all sides.
I don't know, I mean Roe v Wade was a really strong ruling, it was 7 to 2 so it wasn't even close. I mean there can be issues but it was still a very strong ruling for the right to privacy against state intrusion into a pregnancy.
 

Trunkage

Nascent Orca
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
1,360
456
88
Brisbane
Gender
Cyborg
EDIT: Without trying to apply an instance to the intent of a laws framer (which won't always be perfect) all your left with is whatever a judge, with his/her own biases wants. So much for self government, hello to the USSC becoming a super legislature.

One has to make some room for logical conclusions for things and situations that did not exist when the Constitution was framed. There was no Internet then. But it covers free speech. Isn't posting something on the Internet publishing? How about modern weapons? An AR15 didn't exist in the 18th century. Covered by the 2nd? I think so.

To me, Roe crosses a line. Would you believe RBG was critical of Roe too?

The US was incrementally coming to some kind moderate stance on abortion rights. Roe short circuited a growth process, doing a lot of damage in the process and leaving us here, where we are today.

Politically? If the court does away with Roe, I may agree with it legally but there is going to be heck to pay politically on all sides.
She was also critical of the civil rights act. Which is pretty draconian. But it only happened that way because ceetain people stopped moderate laws coming into place for a century and actively undermined it.

I don't think there was ever going to be a moderate Roe v Wade. That's not how the US political systems work. It jerks around when reactionary try to gum up the works.

Like the Christian Conservative movement could come up with solutions that might mitigate the problems. But that's not what they are doing. They want to ban abortions and made it their identity.
 
  • Like
Reactions: gorfias

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 26, 2020
649
354
68
Country
United Kingdom
EDIT: Without trying to apply an instance to the intent of a laws framer (which won't always be perfect) all your left with is whatever a judge, with his/her own biases wants. So much for self government, hello to the USSC becoming a super legislature.
The obvious solution is to divorce judicial appointments from the fucking political party in power. There's no way that grotesque infringement of judicial independence should still be in place.

Russia still has elections, there's just 1 person running.
I realise that it's in many ways a purely technical distinction, but numerous people run-- though it's rigged in favour of one.

Various figures have therefore used election campaigns as a method to garner public recognition and gain a platform (such as Gorbachev), without ever expecting to actually win.
 
  • Like
Reactions: gorfias

gorfias

Unrealistic but happy
Legacy
Apr 6, 2020
709
189
48
Country
USA
I don't know, I mean Roe v Wade was a really strong ruling, it was 7 to 2 so it wasn't even close. I mean there can be issues but it was still a very strong ruling for the right to privacy against state intrusion into a pregnancy.
And that's a good thing. But the Constitution does not guarantee all good things or protect us from all bad things. In a self governing society, outside of the framework of the Constitution, the people decide what is good or bad. Try to make it do all things and you run into rule by judges (I think there's a work for it... Kyriocracy?) Reviewing.

She was also critical of the civil rights act. Which is pretty draconian. But it only happened that way because ceetain people stopped moderate laws coming into place for a century and actively undermined it.

I don't think there was ever going to be a moderate Roe v Wade. That's not how the US political systems work. It jerks around when reactionary try to gum up the works.

Like the Christian Conservative movement could come up with solutions that might mitigate the problems. But that's not what they are doing. They want to ban abortions and made it their identity.
Actually, abortion rights were gaining ground, step by step, State by State. The court jumped the gun saying, "hey, look at the direction things are going! " to support their decision. Even if I support the idea of judging by direction things are going, they jumped the gun in that they didn't have a majority of states just yet when they pulled the trigger.

The obvious solution is to divorce judicial appointments from the fucking political party in power. There's no way that grotesque infringement of judicial independence should still be in place.
In theory there was a time that was so. I don't know if that is true or not. FDR planned to pack the court if they did not change direction. Pols do have a way of getting what they want from the courts.
 

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 24, 2020
968
182
48
Country
USA
I don't think there was ever going to be a moderate Roe v Wade. That's not how the US political systems work. It jerks around when reactionary try to gum up the works.
Roe v Wade is a moderate Roe v Wade. It's aggressively moderate. It just feels less moderate because for some reason when pro-life legislation gets passed (like late term restrictions or safety regulations) nobody on the pro-choice side says "curse Roe v Wade for explicitly allowing these things!"
 

Trunkage

Nascent Orca
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
1,360
456
88
Brisbane
Gender
Cyborg
Actually, abortion rights were gaining ground, step by step, State by State. The court jumped the gun saying, "hey, look at the direction things are going! " to support their decision. Even if I support the idea of judging by direction things are going, they jumped the gun in that they didn't have a majority of states just yet when they pulled the trigger.
Yeah, I get timing can be an issue.

Also, if it's a Right, why wouldn't you make it right. Like, there has been quite a few instances of soceity clearly going one way, some states changing their laws to support this and other deliberately try to suppress it.

Perhaps it could have gradually spread across the US. History says that's highly unlikely. See also Cannabis laws at this time. I dont think it's going to be legal in 50s states in my lifetime
 

Agema

Ph'nglui mglw'nafn Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
1,830
1,285
118
Yeah, that basically aligns with what I said. Personally, I'd be all for a constitutional amendment actually spelling out a general right to privacy. But like, to start with an implied right and then stretch all the way out to effectively legislate the general status quo into place, basically telling both sides of the argument to shut up and leave it be... like, there's not a constitutional basis for that.
There is a constitutional basis for that. The Constitution gives the Supreme Court the right to interpret the law, up to and including the Constitution.

If the government doesn't like a ruling, it has remedies available to it: amend the law or if need be the constitution itself, or change ("stack") the Supreme Court until it hands out a ruling that the government wishes. The danger, of course, of an explicit privacy amendment to the Constitution is how it might then be interpreted, because there could be all manner of unintended consequences.

"Privacy" in the sense used here is more obviously an aspect of liberty than the common use of the word might imply - the right of control over one's own personal life and body, in a sense. We might as well argue that if a state can ban abortion, it can also ban getting a tattoo, or the reverse cowgirl, or certain things we might teach our children. Why not? If it did so, is this really consistent with the "liberty" that the Constitution enshrines?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Seanchaidh

TheMysteriousGX

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 12, 2020
296
216
48
Country
United States
I wanna know if a law that says you have to donate blood and tissue to somebody you injure in a no-fault auto accident would be constitutional.

Actually, abortion rights were gaining ground, step by step, State by State. The court jumped the gun saying, "hey, look at the direction things are going! " to support their decision. Even if I support the idea of judging by direction things are going, they jumped the gun in that they didn't have a majority of states just yet when they pulled the trigger.
Did that with interracial marriage too. How much longer should they have waited? I mean, waiting until 2/3rds of the country was on board with gay marriage hasn't stopped conservatives from wanting to overturn it.
 

gorfias

Unrealistic but happy
Legacy
Apr 6, 2020
709
189
48
Country
USA
Yeah, I get timing can be an issue.

Also, if it's a Right, why wouldn't you make it right. Like, there has been quite a few instances of soceity clearly going one way, some states changing their laws to support this and other deliberately try to suppress it.

Perhaps it could have gradually spread across the US. History says that's highly unlikely. See also Cannabis laws at this time. I dont think it's going to be legal in 50s states in my lifetime
Who makes a "right" a "right". The 9th says very nicely that just because it isn't written there doesn't mean it isn't a right but adds no directive. We do have the ability, through the people, to Amend the Constitution. But if it isn't in there, the 10th says it's up to the States to do the right thing. The Constitution doesn't bar all bad things nor guarantee all good things. There is a school of thought that says Justices should interpret the Constitution as they will. And they tend to be elite: guaranteed upper class income for life having come from backgrounds that likely put them through schools like Harvard University. This is not a typical citizen: they will have their own biases. Or, they can try to figure out how an issue applies to the Constitution within a framework keeping in mind a law's intention. Maybe, the people will have a better chance to make their views controlling in that matter. Maybe. How we're doing with self government fills books.

The Constitution was also intended to be very slow and deliberate. I'm pro de-criminalization. But I try to imagine I were against it. People using it will have a public impact. Imagine if a court discovers it Unconstitutional for the law to control that substance (but others are subject to such controls!). I'd feel robbed of a say in something that can impact me. Maybe part of all of this is to help convince the loser of an issue that the loss was justified. I think that less likely when an elite says unconvincingly that it's just been discovered, by elites, they he doesn't get his way.

I wanna know if a law that says you have to donate blood and tissue to somebody you injure in a no-fault auto accident would be constitutional.

Did that with interracial marriage too. How much longer should they have waited? I mean, waiting until 2/3rds of the country was on board with gay marriage hasn't stopped conservatives from wanting to overturn it.
Again: The Constitution doesn't bar all bad things nor guarantee all good things. The law explicitly allows states to put people to death for criminal infractions as long as this punishment is not cruel and unusual and has complied with due process. Could it demand you give blood and tissue to another in some cases? I don't know. I don't know if it would be a Constitutional matter.
I am increasingly thinking what I wrote above. Maybe this all has to do with convincing the losing side of an issue that there is good reason to have lost and accept it and move on.
Anti Interracial marriage laws Unconstitutional due to Equal Protection? Seems an easy sell. On what rational basis would you be against it? There are very small groups out there vocally and without any rational basis against it. They're kind of a joke. I know of no serious, potent movement to reverse this decision.
A wife can tell her husband: "I know we are married. There used to be all sorts of rights and duties involved with voluntarily engaging in such a relationship. Still I am to have your child in a few days. The child is viable and healthy. But for whatever reason whatsoever I'm going to have the baby killed." That the law, as written, has always intended that this unilateral decision can be made? I think our experiences have told us this is a hard sell.
 

dreng3

Elite Member
Apr 24, 2020
226
136
48
Country
Denmark
Anti Interracial marriage laws Unconstitutional due to Equal Protection? Seems an easy sell. On what rational basis would you be against it? There are very small groups out there vocally and without any rational basis against it. They're kind of a joke. I know of no serious, potent movement to reverse this decision.
A wife can tell her husband: "I know we are married. There used to be all sorts of rights and duties involved with voluntarily engaging in such a relationship. Still I am to have your child in a few days. The child is viable and healthy. But for whatever reason whatsoever I'm going to have the baby killed." That the law, as written, has always intended that this unilateral decision can be made? I think our experiences have told us this is a hard sell.
The american constitution is outdated and taken as gospel by far too many. And it is only made worse by the notion that states should have the right to make laws that are exclusively binding in said states. The US needs a unified set of laws that apply universally. And should probably renew the constitution entirely to fit a modern age and make sure you don't need to be a legal scholar to understand your basic rights.
 
  • Like
Reactions: gorfias